I almost added “felching” to my Firefox dictionary. That would have eliminated a TON of typos in my Wikipedia edits.
denquixote, don’t get excited. As someone who has been warned before, I can tell you that getting political in General Questions is a serious infraction. GQ is the place for factual questions and factual answers. Anything else in GQ will be bashed about the head and shoulders (and maybe banned.) If another poster gets political in GQ, don’t respond. Back away slowly.
The comment “look no further than the Bush administration” is nothing but political.
I assume that is your opinion.
As to other posters:
Well as I said, I don’t understand why the in itial post was in GQ and in my opinion it should have been moved. Be that as it may, I did nothing more than answer it. The fact that there are those who think the Communist party or some far left and virtually unknown syndico-anarchist party may be revolutionary while it is impossible for the republican party to be revolutionary is just so much bunk. The fact is the Bush administration is rewriting the Constitution, eliminating those concepts or freedoms with which it takes exception. Given the fact that this country is founded on the Constitution, and has a valid method for altering it, makes the administration’s refusal to follow it “revolutionary.” Particularly in light of the fact that it has never been before attempted on such a scale.
From the Boston Globe of April 30, 2006 in an article by Charlie Savage reporting that Bush has challenged over 750 laws (either refusing to enforce them, enforcing them in part or declaring what he believes the intent of Congress to have been in passing them) since taking office: “David Golove is a law professor at NYU who specializes in executive power. He stated that Bush has cast a cloud over ''the whole idea that there is a rule of law,” because no one can be certain of which laws Bush thinks are valid and which he thinks he can ignore.
''Where you have a president who is willing to declare vast quantities of the legislation that is passed during his term unconstitutional, it implies that he also thinks a very significant amount of the other laws that were already on the books before he became president are also unconstitutional," Golove said."
This refusal to enforce laws which are already on the books, the duty by the way of the Executive branch, is revolutionary. It arrogates to himself the right to decide which laws are constituional and which are not. That is the duty of the judicial branch.
Now throughout all of this it might be clear to you that I have an opinion on whether this ought to be happening, but maybe that is just you reading the facts and deciding this situation is absurd, and of course it is. But that is you forming an opinion based on the facts, not on my opinion.
As to whether I am thin-skinned, well it is not that so much as the fact that I don’t like to be scolded (if you told me how mean, sarcastic, abrasive and condescending I am I would probably not be offended (and might even agree)) but “Don’t do it again” is a reproach that sounded unduly harsh and pointless. The only other thought it provoked in my mind was “or what?”
In addition, to those who think the prohibition in the stickies is clear, it is not. It says (paraphrasing) “the reason we discourage political communications in the GQ is because of a column that Cecil wrote where people took exception to his referring to the invasion of Iraq as a “damn fool war.”” (Nowhere does it say “Political speech is prohibited in GQ.”) Well that is very provocative language and considerably different from the nature of my comment, given the fact that at the time of his comment (I am assuming) the facts were not yet in evidence to prove that assertion. The facts are now there. It is a damn fool war and the Bush administration is attempting to revolutionize the American system of government.
As an aside to John Mace and Silenus: Kiss my ass you fucking assholes.
But George W Bush would never do anything violent or illegal.
I understand where the OP is coming from, however. I was once told by a moderator (I think it was Tomndeb) that:
“Euthanasiast, you will not do this again.”
I remember thinking to myself, “How the fuck do you know I will not do it again, asshole?”
Then again, I’m still here, so maybe he was right.
Colibri, I’m so pleased! We really, really have mixed feelings about you!
Very good point. I know political stuff is a no-no in GQ, been that way for a long time now – but denquixote is right: the rule isn’t clearly and expressly stated in the sticky thread. Something the admins could take a look at, perhaps.
**Colibri **addressed that in one of his warnings.
Just read Colibri’s response post to denquixote:
I am surprised that no one’s noticed the vagueness before, though.
That’s what I was talking about. Are you saying that I should “just read” it, or that you “just read” it?"
“Read” as in the past tense, as in “I just read it.” Sorry, I was being lazy there.
Amen to that. When I got my warning, I was told that I was a worthless human being, that my mother never loved me, and that a lien would be attached to my mortgage. Two large men showed up at my house and forced me to have sex with them while they smoked cigarettes. Then I was made to eat all the contents of the ashtray. They tatooed a 666 on my forehead and branded a big I (for “ignorant”) on my chest. Before speeding away in their unmarked black sedan, they told me that my next warning would not be nearly so pleasant. I can’t imagine what could be worse, but I suspect it would involve Hillary Clinton and Mitt Romney.
I’ll let it slide this time, but, let Liberal’s example be a word to the wise. Except for the cigarette smoking part. I’m pretty sure he made that up.
Oh no, you are not. Sister Clare was really hot. You, with all due respect, not so much. 
(and that was not a flirty wink, pervs)
Oh, thank you, non-moderator person. I truly do appreciate that.
I’ve just been having a bit of a look at old GQ threads, searching for the word “politics” to see if there’s a bit of a history to this warning against politics in GQ. After Manhattan’s sticky, there seemed to be several threads which were a bit borderline in content, but the first warning found so far was in mid-2004, from DrMatrix here. (Of course, earlier rumblings from the moderators may have been just that, and didn’t go so far as to be warnings, or closed threads. Just informing that a better place for politics is GD rather than GQ.)
FWIW, I think the post in question, if phrased very slightly differently, should have been acceptable, whether or not it’s a politically-sensitive issue. - Because it does in fact refer to a situation - and exception - where a foreign visitor might not enjoy the normal range of rights.
Tsk, tsk. A moderator misquoting another moderator. What is this board coming to?
In case anyone is wondering, there’s an obsenity in the original version, which adds a lot of pizzaz to an otherwise boring conversation.
Edited: Damnation! Beaten to the punch! Um, need more content! Um, so yeah, this OP is stupid! But that’s okay, because this post is stupid (and getting stupider) too!
Dude, if you’re going to make up a story, make it believable.
Everybody knows that 666 on your forehead is a birthmark.